BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 868 Hearing Date: 4/5/2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Jackson |
|----------+------------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |3/28/2016 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Randy Chinn |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act
DIGEST: This bill establishes rules on where and how remote
piloted aircraft (i.e., drones) may operate.
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal regulations require all drone owners to
register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). Commercial drone operators, but not recreational drone
operators, must also obtain FAA authorization, which is granted
on a case-by-case basis.
Existing law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
This bill:
1)Prohibits the operation of a drone in the following
circumstances without consent of the property owner or manager
or Office of Emergency Services (OES), as specified:
a) Within 500 feet of critical infrastructure designated by
the OES, unless the operator is an FAA authorized
commercial operator who does not interfere with the
operation of the critical infrastructure;
b) Within 1,000 feet of a heliport;
c) Within five miles of an airport;
d) Within any other area where Caltrans or OES determines
that drone usage creates an imminent danger to public
SB 868 (Jackson) PageB of?
health and safety;
e) Within the airspace of the state park system;
f) Within the airspace of lands or waters managed by the
Department of Fish and Wildlife; and
g) Within 500 feet of the State Capitol or other building
housing state legislative offices and chambers, unless the
operator is an FAA-authorized commercial operator who does
not interfere with the operation of the critical
infrastructure.
1)Prohibits the operation of a drone in a manner that:
a) Interferes with manned aircraft;
b) Is prohibited by federal statute or regulation;
c) Is careless or reckless and endangers life or property;
d) Constitutes a nuisance under section 3479 of the civil
code;
e) Violates an individual's right to privacy under the
California constitution; and
f) Constitutes trespass under California law.
1)Prohibits the weaponization of drones.
2)Authorizes operating a drone:
a) Above any property to which the drone operator has a
right of entry.
b) Above state property if the operator has received a
permit from the California Film Commission.
c) In any airspace deemed necessary by the operator to
avoid imminent danger to the life and safety of another
person or the public.
1)Requires:
a) Every commercial operator of a drone to procure adequate
protection against liability.
b) Every drone to give way to manned aircraft.
c) Every drone operator to comply with all licensing,
registration, and marking requirements of the FAA.
1)Caltrans:
a) Shall develop rules and regulations to enforce these
provisions and shall cooperate with the federal government
and other political subdivisions in California.
b) May represent the state in drone matters before federal
and other agencies.
c) May participate as plaintiff or defendant or intervenor
SB 868 (Jackson) PageC of?
on behalf of the state.
d) May assist political subdivisions and their law
enforcement agencies with the regulations.
e) May enforce these rules and regulations by injunction or
other legal process in federal, state, and local courts.
Violations of Caltrans' rules and regulations are subject to a
fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment by not more than
six months, or both. Appeals of these violations shall be made
to the California Transportation Commission.
OES is authorized to adopt regulations regarding the prohibition
against operating drones within 500 feet of critical
infrastructure or in any other area where unrestricted drone
operation presents an imminent danger to public health and
safety.
Operation of a drone in violation of the prohibition against
operation in the state park system shall be enforced exclusively
by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Violations are
either misdemeanors, punishable by up to 90 days in jail, or a
fine of up to $1,000, or both; or infractions punishable by a
fine of up to $1,000.
Operation of a drone in violation of the prohibition against
operation above lands or waters managed by the Department of
Fish and Wildlife shall be enforced exclusively by that
department. Violations are misdemeanors.
Operation of a drone in violation of the prohibition against
operation above the State Capitol and related buildings shall be
enforced exclusively by the California Highway Patrol (CHP).
Violations are misdemeanors.
The provisions of this bill are severable. If any part of this
bill is found to be invalid, the remaining parts of the bill are
unaffected.
COMMENTS:
Author's statement. According to the author, the development of
small unmanned aircraft systems (i.e., drones) promises to
revolutionize the way Californians interact with each other and
their environment. However, the lack of clear rules governing
the use of this emerging technology threatens to harm
California's natural resources and undermine public safety. To
SB 868 (Jackson) PageD of?
date, the lack of regulation has led to disputes between
neighbors concerned about invasions of their privacy, impacts to
wildlife, near collisions with airplanes and helicopters,
interference with firefighting efforts, and accidents injuring
innocent bystanders. Some individuals are reportedly modifying
drones to carry weapons, and, in at least one instance, a drone
was used to land radioactive material on the roof of a
government building.
Commonsense rules are needed to ensure that drones are used in a
safe and responsible manner, consistent with the values of the
people of the state of California.
Background. Moving beyond hobbyists and the military, drones
are increasingly a part of commercial and recreational
activities. In fields as diverse as agriculture, filmmaking,
electric utility service, and public safety, drones can monitor,
track, and provide surveillance in many useful and previously
undoable ways. Amazon and Google are experimenting with using
drones to speed package delivery. Drones have become easier to
use and have become less costly. This, combined with improved
cameras and sensors, has caused drone sales to take off, so to
speak. The FAA estimated that 1 million drones would be sold
during the 2015 Christmas season. Compared to 2014, the
Consumer Electronics Association estimated that drone sales
would increase by 63% in 2015.
Drones will play an increasingly visible role in our future.
They will be used by many businesses and government entities to
do their jobs better and more efficiently, and they'll be used
by our friends and neighbors for recreation. They will also be
over our heads, whether in the park, at the mall, or in our
backyards.
The remarkable growth in drone usage creates issues. Foremost
is public safety, as drones can imperil aircraft, as recent
incidents with commercial aviation and forest fire-fighting
aircraft demonstrate. The FAA has noted that, "Incidents
involving unauthorized and unsafe use of small,
remote-controlled aircraft have risen dramatically. Pilot
reports of interactions with suspected unmanned aircraft have
increased from 238 sightings in all of 2014 to 780 through
SB 868 (Jackson) PageE of?
August of this year (2015)."<1> The safety of the public on the
ground is also potentially at risk, as drones can crash, be
mispiloted, or simply malfunction. Drones can also be used for
harmful purposes, as in the case of transporting contraband into
prisons or as a means for conveying explosives or other
dangerous materials. And there are the more conventional
concerns about privacy and nuisance behavior.
Current drone regulation. The FAA does not permit commercial
drone operation except on a case-by-case basis. However, in
February 2015, the FAA proposed regulations on commercial drone
users. Among the proposals was a 55-pound weight limitation,
line-of-sight operation, maximum airspeed of 100 mph, a ban on
operation over any people, a maximum operating altitude of 500
feet, and training and licensing for the operator. Those rules
have not been finalized but are expected by mid-year.
In December 2015, the FAA required commercial and recreational
drone users to register their drones. Nearly 300,000 drone
users registered within the first 30 days, according to the FAA.
This is modest success given the more than 1 million drones in
use.
Several California local governments have enacted their own
drone regulations. In October 2015, the City of Los Angeles
enacted drone regulations similar to the FAA proposal. In
December, the city filed the first criminal charges under the
ordinance, citing two individuals for operating a drone which
interfered with a Los Angeles Police Department air unit,
causing it to change its landing path. In northern California,
the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
banned drones near the Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed
on the roadway.
Jurisdiction. The dividing line between state and federal
jurisdiction of drones is fuzzy. The most recent and directly
relevant guidance is perhaps the December 17, 2015, fact sheet
issued by the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel, cited above.
It notes that "a navigable airspace free from inconsistent state
and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe
and sound air transportation system." Quoting the fact sheet,
"Laws traditionally related to state and local police power -
---------------------------
<1> FAA Office of the Chief Counsel; "State and Local Regulation
of Unmanned Aircraft systems (UAS) Fact Sheet"; December 17,
2015.
SB 868 (Jackson) PageF of?
including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law
enforcement operations - generally are not subject to federal
regulation." Cited examples include prohibiting drones from
being used for voyeurism, prohibitions on using drones for
hunting or fishing, and prohibitions on attaching weapons to
drones.
The fact sheet notes that mandating equipment or training for
drones related to aviation safety would likely be preempted by
federal law. State drone registration requirements are barred.
Other areas are less clear. Operational restrictions on drones,
including altitude and flight paths, operational bans, and any
regulations of navigable airspace are areas where consultation
with the FAA is recommended by the Fact Sheet. Many of the
provisions of this bill create no-fly zones and impose
operational restrictions, which fall into this jurisdictionally
unclear area, neither clearly authorized nor clearly preempted.
As noted above, the fuzzy jurisdictional lines have not
prevented the City of Los Angeles and the Golden Gate Bridge,
Highway and Transportation District from imposing their own
rules.
Caltrans. This bill requires the development of implementing
regulations by Caltrans. While this may seem an odd assignment,
within Caltrans resides the Division of Aeronautics, a 25-person
unit which deals with siting, planning, and inspection issues at
public-use airports. These are airports open to the general
public, such as Sacramento Executive Airport, and do not include
the large commercial airports, such as Sacramento International
Airport. Caltrans is the only state agency with any dealings or
familiarity with the FAA and is therefore the best, though
imperfect, fit for these regulatory duties.
Insurance requirement. This bill requires every commercial
drone operator, and any person using, operating, or renting a
drone with the permission of a commercial operator, to procure
liability insurance. The amount of insurance shall be
determined by Caltrans, after a public hearing, at a level
necessary to provide adequate compensation for liability or
damages incurred involving operation of a drone. Recreational
and other non-commercial drone operators are not required to
obtain insurance by this legislation, although many may have
coverage through existing homeowners' insurance policies.
SB 868 (Jackson) PageG of?
Commercial liability insurance is generally broadly
encompassing, and large commercial businesses carry such
coverage or have deep enough pockets to cover most liability or
damages. More risky are small or new businesses which may not
carry adequate insurance for the potential risks they pose to
the public.
Enforcement. The most difficult issue in the bill is
enforcement. Policing no-fly zones or tracking down nuisance or
dangerous drones is exceedingly difficult, given their mobility
and small size. Moreover, despite the federal requirement,
many, if not most, drones do not have individual identifying
markings. Locating the operator of an anonymous captured drone
would be very challenging, given that the operator may be
hundreds of yards away in any direction.
This bill provides enforcement authority to Caltrans, the
Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife, and the CHP, depending on the location of the
violation. Violations are misdemeanors which could involve jail
time, fines, or both.
Opposition. A coalition of drone manufacturers and drone users
opposes this bill. They contend that the bill needlessly
addresses already prohibited conduct (e.g., eavesdropping and
Peeping Tom), creates a new insurance requirement without
justification, and is preempted by federal law. The coalition
is concerned that this bill will deter future innovation and
investment in California in the drone industry.
Double-referral. This bill has also been referred to the Senate
Public Safety Committee.
Related Legislation:
SB 142 (Jackson, 2015) - operation of a drone below the
navigable airspace overlying the property of another without
permission is trespassing. This bill was vetoed by the
Governor.
SB 170 (Gaines, 2015) - prohibits operation of a drone over a
jail. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) - prohibits operation of a drone over a
K-12 school campus or the taking of pictures by a drone of a
K-12 campus without permission. This bill was vetoed by the
SB 868 (Jackson) PageH of?
Governor.
AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) - established a drone task force to
recommend policies regarding drone use. This bill failed
passage in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
March 30, 2016.)
SUPPORT:
City of West Hollywood
OPPOSITION:
Academy of Model Aeronautics
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International
California Chamber of Commerce
Consumer Technology Association
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Small UAV Coalition
3D Robotics
DJI
GoPro, Inc.
Yuneec USA Inc.
-- END --